Archive for the 'Developing Conflict Competence' Category

Clear roles and goals reduce conflict and stress

 Last month I wrote about confusion in roles and responsibilities contributing to conflict. Having said that, someone asked for more information about how to fix the situation.

 

Clearly understanding roles and goals greatly contributes to stress management in many situations, whether in a family or organization. Uncertainty is stressful and becomes blame, confusion about who does what, and feeling what work you do is unappreciated. In one case I mediated, the manager and employee had such different ideas of what each one’s role was, that their goals were constantly clashing. By the time I was invited to help, the manager’s goal was to find a way to get rid of the employee, while the employee’s goal was to replace the manager. They were both very stressed and mistrustful.

 

One of the relevant conflict management skills is asking good opened-ended questions. Here’s some steps to take, which is not an exhaustive list but will help frame the approach:

 

1. Determine the particular reason for having a goal.

The reason for a goal is fundamental to the approach to setting the goal. If the reason is to meet a target, such as sales, then setting the goal might have quantitative questions: how much, what size, which territory, who is responsible etc? If the reason for the goal is to support someone’s personal growth and development, the questions might be more qualitative: what feelings, whose perspectives, when in time, is it in the job description etc?

 

2. Discover the nature of the relationship between the people involved in setting the goal.

The context for the goal setting influences the process. Is there a power differential that might set of tone of the more powerful person dictating goals to the less powerful person? Is the relationship so strained that the people involved might never be able to agree on who has what role or responsibility? Is it peers who are collectively setting a team goal that all will be asked to meet?

 

3. Delve into how empowered the people involved are.

A common scenario might be a supervisor, who we’ll call R, giving a yearly performance review to a staff member, who we’ll call D. R and D may have a tense relationship based on past history of irritating each other, or a friendly relationship because they think on the same wavelength. R must still reflect on what his/her intentions are for the meeting with D about work goals. The choices for R would range from: having a friendly conversation because all is well with D’s work, to having a disciplinary tone in which consequences are set out if D does not meet R’s expectations, or anything in between.

 

4. Develop a clear intention for the process of setting goals

If you intend to set achievable goals, have an understanding of the power dynamic and options for how to frame the conversation. Some questions to ask yourself before going into the goal setting meeting might be: what assumptions do I have about the reasons, goals and employee; are those assumptions skewing my intention; if I change those assumptions do my intentions change?

Conflicts from confused roles and responsibilities

Two new cases came in this past week. A small nonprofit organization with four staff hired a new coordinator and within months communication had broken down between him and the office manager. The other case was in a very large organization where two managers had stopped speaking to each other, which was hard on staff who needed the managers to direct the work flow seamlessly. In both cases, the problem turned out to be confusion over who did what, when and how. Because the roles were unclear, it was natural that blame, finger-pointing and defensive excuses followed.

There are at least two places where clear roles and responsibilities matter to harmony. One is among members of the Boards of Directors of profit or nonprofit organizations. The other is any workplace with more than one employee.

Boards of Directors are often made up of volunteers recruited for their skill, experience and talent, plus a passion for the cause of the organization. Or, maybe just to pad a resume with ‘good works’. Whatever the motive, once on a Board, just having passion and being a do-gooder isn’t enough to prevent conflict from arising among the Directors. What they have in common with other kinds of people who are paid workers, is that their conflict often stems from unclear job descriptions, or ambiguous roles with uncertain responsibilities.

When the roles and responsibilities lack clarity, there are three risks. The first is that gaps in who is responsible for certain tasks exist where it’s no one’s job to do that task. Whether people notice the task is falling into the gap or not, no one steps forward to do it because it’s no one’s job. The consequences of having gaps is blaming and fault finding in who ought to have assigned it to someone, or who should have done it without being asked, or at least have noticed it wasn’t being done.

The second risk is in overlaps. Where the roles and responsibilities fall into more than one person’s plate, it might get done, but in a way that sends inconsistent messages or skews the ability to evaluate the outcomes. The frequent outcome of overlaps is jealousy and hostility that one’s ‘turf’ is being disrespected, the work is being second-guessed and people tend to feel undermined or their competence questioned. Otherwise, they reason, the other person would not have been doing work that is mine to do.

A third risk comes from slaps. Whatever is causing people to feel bad about confusing roles and responsibilities, the outcome tends to be the same. Someone feels slapped for doing or not doing something that should or should not have been done. Likely, it was something that might have been avoided if everyone had been clear on whose job it was to make the necessary decisions associated with the neglected or overly attended to task.

Being difficult and being yourself

 

I’ve been reading, as perhaps you have as well, that happiness lies in having friendships and collegial relationships, and not in having excess money or in acquiring things. This is not a recent discovery. The Greek philosopher Epicurus, in about 307 BCE, taught that having an emotional connection with other people was a requirement for true happiness.

 

It makes sense, therefore, that knowing how to have and to be a friend and colleague should be one of the skills we learn as children. Usually socializing and interacting with other children teaches us the skills for getting along well with people, but not always. Some children have experiences that make it difficult for them as adults to have connections with others. And, realistically, everyone can not get along with everyone else. There will always be someone we’d rather not call a friend. Still, we are hard-wired to want to connect and get along with people, even with the difficult ones.

 

At a recent workshop on dealing with difficult people, one of the participants confessed that at work she was one of the difficult people others had to deal with. She didn’t want to be difficult. She just didn’t know how to release the friend and colleague that she knew was inside her, which others weren’t seeing. She felt internal conflict with herself over how she wanted to relate to people in the ordinary way that others seemed to and still be her unique self. How, she asked, could she change to be like everyone else so that people liked her, without selling out what she liked about herself?

 

Change is never easy, so we started with the simple few things we could do. Changing one thing would set off a chain reaction because everything is connected to everything else. We identified three conflict management techniques for connecting with others in a satisfying and authentic way. Adding those to our repertoire won’t change our unique personalities. However, they could change the nature of our relationships - for the better. The three conflict management skills we discussed are:

 

1. using questions to move from positions to interests;

2. understanding conflict management styles so that she uses the one that’s appropriate for the situation; and

3. matching the level of conversation (was the level about facts, emotions or identity?) of the other person so that the discussion is about the same thing.

 

Difficult people are hard to get to know so assumptions about them often substitute for understanding them. If we use the conflict management skills, it won’t guarantee others will like us. It will mean they won’t consider us difficult to deal with, and that means they get to know us and from there can decide if they like us or not.

 

Conflict Analysis of Theory of Mind

Theory of Mind is something most conflict resolvers know about while perhaps not knowing that it’s called Theory of Mind. It refers to how a person knows what someone else’s intentions are. This belief that we can know someone else’s private unspoken intention, and judge the intention as moral or immoral, is the basis for Theory of Mind research.

Brains develop over time. A toddler’s stubbornness or teenager’s frustrations will reduce in intensity with maturity. One of the cognitive abilities that children develop by about the age of about four is seeing that a person might not intend the consequences of a word or act, as in “Mommy, Brian did it but it was an accident.” Children will come to understand that not all acts or words are deserving of punishment. Some are, but not all. Theory of Mind entails this discernment of whether intentions are or are not blameworthy.

Toronto native Rebecca Saxe, now a neuroscience researcher at MIT, among other researchers, has located the part of the brain associated with making those moral judgments about the intentions of other people. Rebecca tells us it is the area of the brain known as RTPJ, the right temporoparietal junction, which lights up in an fMRI when a person is thinking about whether someone intends to be friend or foe, intends to do good or ill, and intends to speak words as insult or comment. The RTPJ is the brain region used to read other people’s minds to determine their intentions. When we think about what other people might be thinking, we think it in our RTPJ. Further, Rebecca has discovered that charging the RTPJ with a shot of magnetism will change a person’s ‘mind reading’ ability. The RTPJ, in its changed state, will make different assessments about the person’s intention in doing the act. In other words, if you witness an immoral act or word that you believe the person intended to do or say, and then witness it again after your RTPJ is charged, you might no longer believe the person should be culpable for the immoral act.

Implications for understanding conflict patterns of blame

Observers to a conflict in action might intuit that a party’s assumptions, attributions, and inferences about another’s intentions can start or keep conflicts going. We hear the parties’ certainty that they know the contents of each other’s private thoughts. Blame is, after all, based on knowing and judging a person’s intention. While the RTPJ improves its skill from childhood onward, mind reading is still an imperfect art. Even if it were perfect, something seems to happen to mind reading ability in some conflicts. The conflicting parties get into a pattern of attributing intention to another, i.e. blame. The answer to the question - ‘is that other person’s intention blameworthy’ - is often a strident ‘yes’.

A person in conflict will state as a fact that he knows the offense or insult was intentional. “She knew that would hurt me and she meant to”, is an example of such a theme. In mediation or conflict coaching, the parties share points of view (intentions). It might be the first time he has heard her say what she really intended. Once he hears her, he can decide if his earlier moral judgment correctly assessed her intention as deserving of blame. He may change his belief about her intention, which seems like a transformative moment. Or, she might deny that she intended to hurt him, and he may not accept the denial as true. To an outsider, it may look obstinate that he refused to believe her. Most likely, we don’t think about how his brain was wired to call those shots.

Using this information on our conflict mental maps

When in or observing a conflict, people create conflict mental maps to help understand the parties moving through their conflict landscape. A physical map that’s a fair representation of the actual landscape is more useful than a map that’s fanciful. We rely on physical maps to get us places topographically speaking, and thus accuracy matters. Mental maps, however, are indeed fanciful. They may be a cognitive representation of the conflict landscape, but the conflict mental map must move with the landscape if it is to get us anywhere in the conflict. The parties move, their fitness on the landscape shifts, their intentions alter, and so the conflict moves around our conflict mental map as a result.

Conflict mental maps have an uncertainty principle. Data about the parties, positions, interests, intentions, and desired outcomes are continually imperfect and in motion. A common conflict mental map may have to be a four or five dimensional representation of a conflict to have any chance of accuracy, which even then won’t be accurate for long. As we accumulate data during the conflict’s life cycle, we add layers to the conflict mental map so we can pick our way forward. How a party reads another party’s intention is a layer to the conflict mental map. When we get to that tempting meadow we linger, testing the misconceptions, assumptions, and beliefs underlying a party’s certainty that s/he knows of the others’ intentions.

I suggest there are at least two obvious conflict analyses we can make of Theory of Mind. First, at all the stages of a conflict we use our own mind reading abilities as adaptable skills. Our conflict mental map can stay open to multiple new inputs.  As we listen to conflict stories and engage with each other, we can listen for the effects of the RTPJ on the respective narratives. When a party says, ‘I know he meant to hurt me,’ she knows that through her RTPJ. When a party says, ‘I assume it was an intentional act,’ he is responding to what his RTPJ informed him was correct mind reading.

The second use, stemming from the first, is to design ways to train RTPJs to expand their repertoire. A well-muscled RTPJ that has been relied on extensively will have the courage of its beliefs in its mind reading ability. If we want to build trust among the parties, we need to know how to talk to an RTPJ about its certainty of the others’ intentions. Our old approaches might not be the best language that an RTPJ understands. I’m following Rebecca’s research to see where she next goes with this.

Caution and Conclusion

The European model in the developed world is to separate intention and consequences. If I didn’t mean to cause harm, or couldn’t stop the harm from happening, the legal system or other institutions should listen to me and decide the lack of intention means I’m not liable for anything. This is not a universal construct. In some ways of thinking, the consequences of the action or word might be almost determinative. In this approach, if I hurt or damaged or injured you, I’m liable for making things better for you. Intention has cultural and scientific foundations. Therefore, we need to understand intention better, and have a vocabulary to engage people in discussing their intentions and their assumptions about other’s intentions.

The RTPJ’s use in reading other’s intentions has implications at a number of levels. It may suggest that the concepts of how to avoid bias, stereotyping, and even prejudice are problematic.  Since the ability to ‘read minds’ is hard wired into our RTPJ, surely there was an evolutionary adaptive advantage to having it operate. How does one turn off the RTPJ to be impartial? Would you want to if the RTPJ is associated with discernment and judgment? Is the RTPJ more rigid with some people, or does it become so as a result of protracted conflict when trust is diminished? These are questions that might become known as Rebecca and her associates continue to research. Conflict resolution practitioners should be interested in the answers she has so far.

 

Mediation Myths

 There are myths  that we hear about what mediation is and what a mediator does.

I propose telling some stories to expose three of those myths about mediation.

Myth one: it’s touchy feely stuff and not real law or problem solving.

Myth two: agreeing to mediate is a sign your case is weak.

Myth three: if you aren’t tough in the mediation, you’ll have to compromise too much.

These are true mediation stories of cases I’ve had, made generic to preserve confidentiality: the substantive areas vary to demonstrate the issues are universal. The stories include one insurance, one estate, and one employment

1. A nurse in a long term care facility inherited from an elderly man with dementia. The deceased’s niece and nephews contested the will. They accused her of spotting a resident with few visitors and no immediate family and influencing him to sign a will in her favour. At the mediation, her lawyer would not let her answer the question about her relationship with the deceased. He said that was touchy feely stuff and not relevant to the law of wills and estates, which was clearly on her side. In caucus she told me that she had been the deceased’s friend for over 30 years.

? What would you recommend happen next?

Defendant lawyer admitted he had been defensive and it was a mistake to not let his client tell her story. In the next session he apologized and she told her story in a clear, credible way. It isn’t weakness to admit a mistake and apologize. Telling your story is not touchy feely stuff. It’s real human dynamics made visible.

2. Defendant lawyer was well prepared, briefed, and had his client, the insurance adjuster rep, ready to settle. He gave an opening statement that said they were there to resolve the claim.

Plaintiff lawyer was not ready to settle and did not state a position for his client, the insured. His opening statement was that they were there to listen because he hadn’t expected that the defendant would come with an offer. He said that coming with an offer would suggest he thought his case was not strong enough to take to court.

? What do you think the defendant’s lawyer said / did next?

He worked with the plaintiff’s lawyer to get him to a place of negotiation. He explained to the insured how the process could go, offered cases in support, kept the conversation pleasant and non accusatory, got to everyone’s interests, and encouraged the plaintiff to consider the offer or make a counter offer through her lawyer. Def lawyer was courteous to plaintiff and lawyer throughout. It settled in a range that satisfied everyone and plaintiff lawyer did not lose face. Take the opportunity to settle seriously enough to add value to the client’s options. Mediation is not about having a strong or a weak case. If you’re prepared, your case can be stronger than if you are unprepared. It’s in the work you do to get ready that weakness or strength will show at mediation.

 3. The night before a mediation of a lawsuit in its 10th year of life, I got a call from plaintiff lawyer – he said of the other lawyer: “we loathe each other – can’t be in the same room together tomorrow with our clients.”

? What would you recommend happen next?

We mediated between the lawyers one hour before the clients arrived. They had been so tough that they lost all respect for each other and the case went on 9.5 years longer than it needed to. There’s a balance between being a pushover and being so tough that no one can negotiate with you. Find that balance and you won’t have to compromise because you’ll be able to negotiate a win/win.

Getting knowledgeable about how mediation works makes it much easier to achieve your mediation goals. Falling for the myths of mediation makes it much easier to fall into negotiation and mediation traps.

 

 

what does it mean to be conflict ‘competent’

If the goal is to be competent in conflict situations, i.e. do conflict better, how am I defining ‘competent’ and ‘better’?

 

Anecdotally, I’d start with it meaning: to have appropriate skills and experience to deal with those stresses and pressures that come with interactions that reduce your sense of wellbeing and health. This assumes, of course, that conflict reduces or affects quality of life. I’m going to assume this is a reasonable assumption for most people, most of the time. While some people might enjoy being in conflict, it isn’t common.

 

To be more specific, being competent means having strengths and wisdom necessary to engage in effective, productive and generally happy personal interactions with others. Social interactions keep us healthy and reduce stress. Being skilled at doing this is a positive contribution towards quality of life.

 

Conflict competency is also an attitude. Attitudes include how we chose to perceive our interactions. We can be motivated to be competent or decide not to work on a skill set

 

This week, I was consulted by a delightful person and her representative. She was about to confront her manager and wanted advice on approaches that might be most likely to result in win/win for everyone. This was already a step towards becoming competent in handling conflict. She was showing the attitude of wanting to engage in an interpersonal interaction that would be effective for everyone involved.

 

She recounted the statement her manager made that offended her and motivated her to see me. Her representative and I suggested to her that how she took the statement might not have been what the manager intended it to mean. She said she had not thought of that. Her perspective opened to new possibilities and assumptions she was able to make.

 

It was a pleasure watching her attitude change as she became more conflict competent before us.

Conflict management and the movies

Some professional mediators were talking and the question came up about when to “use” conflict management techniques. Those in the conversation wanted to know when it was okay to behave ‘normally’ and when they were to behave with conflict competence. There was a lively discussion about this.

After the various arguments for and against the opinions were aired, we were left with a couple of choices. Either conflict management was a technique that one used strategically, or it was a way of being in the world much as your personality gives you a way of being in the world. Having heard the arguments in support of the positions, what might be left to propose?

A compromise seems somewhat unsatisfactory: e.g. sometimes be conflict competent and sometimes not! There isn’t an obvious reason to willingly be conflict incompetent. Is there an integrative alternative? Perhaps it is cinema that offers an insight. Every good story has a conflict at its core. A movie without a conflict is one where not much happens that an audience wants to watch. The conflict can be subtle internal angst or cars blowing up in a plotless serial display of special effects. Hollywood knows that conflict drives the story, and we are, after all, the sum of our stories. A totally peaceful life is not all that interesting.

Perhaps we can do the drama, and the venting, and exhibit our righteous indignation over the unfairness or injury. Then, we can process the information before taking a moral and ethical high road. In other words, maybe we can be both conflict competent and incompetent. We can have the full range of ‘normal’ human emotions and reactions. Then, before we react the way those human emotions and reactions are driving us to do, our conflict resolution side can slide like a veil back in front of our faces.

Is there another option, or a completely different set of questions that would reveal “the answer”?

Conflict management lessons can come from anywhere

On 10 December, 2009, President Barak Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize and gave the Laureate address in Oslo, Norway. I listened with interest for many reasons, one of which was because it was the Peace Prize awarded to the President of a nation at war.  That’s a bit challenging to get my mind around. Still, without making any judgments about the prize committee’s decision, I’m prepared to take conflict management lessons from all kinds of places. I was curious. That’s the necessary precondition to learning. I was listening. That’s the second precondition. So, what did I learn?

President Obama said it was important to have principles to follow when dealing with rogues. I’ve added how his principles apply to conflict management at work.

I.               Adhering to standards isolates those who don’t meet them and strengthens those who do.

When someone on the team is, in your opinion, slacking or acting disengaged from work, it’s tempting to feel that you are being penalized for showing up on time and doing all your work. After all, that person is getting away with goofing off, so it isn’t much incentive for you to work hard. You might get into a conflict about what you see as the unfair work distribution. President Obama said the other person may have low standards, but he or she is also isolated. Once you lower your standards to his or her level, you are keeping that person company and ending that isolation. Keeping your standards high keeps you strong.

II.              Uphold values when it’s easy and when it’s hard to do.

The values we hold at work come from several sources. First, the organization’s values are stated in the vision, mission and values statements. Also significant are the values of your discipline or your specific work. For example, if you are certified by a professional association, you are bound to follow the values of your profession or trade. If you are located within a distinct community, you may share the values of that community. Finally, and just as important, are your individual values, such as your beliefs and worldview. Sometimes, these values are in conflict with each other. When that happens, you may find you are in conflict with yourself and/or with your team. Then, it is hard to know what values to prioritize. President Obama said that it is in such circumstances that knowing and understanding your values and their place in the hierarchy of values is most important. When there’s conflict is the time to know your values and let them guide you.

III.            Build a just and lasting peace.

That sounds good; what does it mean and how would I do it? Perhaps it means peace that isn’t bullt on the oppression of others. It also connotes a peace that is courageous, even where there is fear. It would be nice to have no fear, but that means having nothing to be afraid of. We don’t yet live in that world. Perhaps it will be enough to have courage when afraid. Perhaps that would build a just and lasting peace. How is that to be done? President Obama had some suggestions:

1.     Use alternatives that change behaviour with real enforcement for breaches.

2.     Don’t stand by when there is injustice that can be spoken against.

3.     Stand with allies who also support your values, moral imagination and sense of possibility.

4.     Find hope in situations and pursue that hope or there will be status quo.

5.     Value human dignity.

6.     Know what ‘ought to be’ and seek to enact it.

7.     What actions you do you must accept when others do them.

8.     To achieve resolution requires accepting responsibility and perhaps making sacrifices.

9.     Reject either / or choices and look to creative options for having justice for everyone.

Conclusion

Things happen between people and conflict can result. You are the first in line for those who can problem solve. Do I agree with the Nobel Peace Prize Committee’s choice for 2009? Irrelevant. It’s a done deal. Instead, let’s take the lessons we can get from the recipient. Conflict management lessons can come from anywhere.

Blind Spot analysis

A blind spot is anything that, because of your identity and experience and location, you cannot see or understand. This week, I was the after-meeting speaker for an association. The topic was one of my favorites, Developing Conflict Competence.

As usual, it was an interactive session in which the audience members used the information to consider their own situations. One man in the audience was particularly engaged in the discussion. His appearance is important to the story. He was a retired, white man, over six feet tall, fit and imposing. He made the point that a lot of getting along with people was just being friendly and polite. To make the point, he related that he usually greeted everyone, even strangers in cities he visited, and they almost always returned his greeting. This, he declared, proved his point that we can all contribute to better inter-personal relationships. It was a terrific reinforcement of the talk I was giving.

Then, the man decided to test whether I used the same technique to get along with people. He posed this question: when I travel, do I greet people, such as those standing waiting for the elevator with me. I replied that I frequently greet strangers but might not in the scenario he had chosen. He looked dismayed and challenged that I selectively greeted people, suggesting that I was less committed to good interpersonal relationships than he. The rest of the audience looked somewhat confused, although I can’t say for sure what they made of the exchange at that point. 

So, I explained my reply. When I travel it is usually during the week when the people I am likely to meet in elevators are also business travelers. Therefore, the person standing at the elevator with me is likely to be a working male; that is, a man between late teens and late sixties. If I were to give him the big smile and hearty greeting that the man in the audience had described as his way of being friendly, the man at the elevator might just as possibly think I was making an advance or trying to hit on him. In other words, in the context, I might edit my usually friendliness to be socially appropriate for my identity, experience and location.

The man in the audience looked stunned. He said: “I’ve never heard of such a thing.” Indeed, he might not have. That does not make it less real for those of us who are women traveling alone. I assured him it was a very real consideration. He varied his surprised response: “I never thought of that.”

That’s his blind spot. He has never had reason to think what it might be like for women considering his identity, experience and location is different. There are so many places in which we have blind spots about many things. Doing a Blind Spot Analysis to determine what you are blind to, can help develop your conflict competence. There are applications of Blind Spot Analysis in any area in which you might have conflicts.

At a recent conference where I was a key note speaker, I overheard a conversation between someone eager to deny global climate change and someone from the far North who is living with the consequences of melting ice and diminishing sea life. The former worked in oil and gas, while the latter was a government employee north of the 60th parallel. The one’s identity as an ‘Oil Man’ and location in a major city that is hub to the industry, made him blind to the experience that the Northern government employee was trying to explain. The urban dweller had no context for understanding the lived experience of the remote North.

We all have blind spots. There are very serious issues in the 21st century, with lots of potential for conflict embedded in those problems. Blind spots add denial into the conflict while reducing the knowledge available for solutions to emerge. If you hear yourself denying or questioning whether someone else’s stated reality and knowledge and experience is right - because it is so different from your own - then perhaps it’s time to conduct your own Blind Spot Analysis. 

 

 

Apologies have a role in conflict management

It happens, as an intervention proceeds, that parties in conflict learn more about the other parties’ perspectives. Often, the result is that someone wants to apologize for behaviour that seemed reasonable at the time. Learning from the discussion in the mediation what the impact of that behaviour was on the other people, can put that behaviour into a whole new light.

This week, one of the parties took me aside and asked a great question: is it seemly for a manager to apologize to someone he supervises? He was concerned about losing face, or diminishing his authority in the employee’s eyes. It’s a legitimate concern and it’s based, in part, on a belief that power comes from being strong and always in the right.

After he and I discussed it, he shared his insight into a different way of managing. He returned to the mediation table and told the employee he was sorry for how he had acted. He said he hoped that they could repair the relationship and continue to work together with more 2-way feedback than they’d had before.

The manager wasn’t giving up any power; his authority remained unchallenged. What he was offering was to learn from the communication they would henceforth have with each other. The employee was happy with the outcome and the manager felt empowered with his new knowledge.

Disappointed Expectations are a Source of Conflict

Anecdotally, if I had to pick a leading cause of conflict, I would say it’s disaapointed expectations.

  • someone wants something done and the other doesn’t accomplish it
  • a lover misses a cue to be supportive
  • the boss had a particular deadline or quality of work in mind that was missed
  • children aren’t quiet when silence is needed
  • and so on…..

What is most interesting about mediations involving disappointment over expectations that aren’t fulfilled, is how often the person who disappointed did not know there were expectations he or she was supposed to be meeting.Here’s a sample of typical dialogue from some similar stories, distilled into a flow:

Kathy: I can’t count on you to follow through with anything you commit to.

Tom: What did I commit to that I didn’t do?

Kathy: You knew I needed that done by Thursday and you did everything else first. So when Thursday rolled around, there was no way you’d have enough time to get it done.

Tom: Why didn’t you say it was more important than everything else I was supposed to do this week?

Kathy:  How could you not know it was a priority? I told you how important it was. And you knew I needed it for Thursday.

Tom: Sure, and then you asked for three other things so how was I to know the first thing was still the most important?

This could have been avoided with simple clarity about what was expected when. Tom expected to be told what the priorities were so he didn’t have to guess, and Kathy expected Tom to be an adult who knew those priorities through competence. They could spend the next years arguing about Tom’s inability to read minds, and Kathy’s refusal to treat him like a child, which is how each of them frames their point of view.The lesson for me from all the conflict stories in many mediations, is to be clear about expectations. Telepathy and micro-management are not the only options. Avoid disappointment; state your expectations and interests.

Lesson on Conflict from the Galapagos Islands

As well as enthralling and enchanting, the Galapagos Islands are enlightening. Iguanas, blue footed boobies, sea lions, and penguins, are abundant and have complex social communities. It was fascinating to see their dynamic interactions in species and among species. Here is one key thing I learned about conflict from observing the natural environment in a place where nature is still ‘natural’.

Every living thing has a conflict during the day. Some critter gets too close and gets hissed at for some reason. They know when to fight, and when to retreat. When they lose, they find something else to do and someplace else to stand. When they win, they get back to their day. They carry grudges, sure, but it doesn’t seem to define their lives. They have balance.

 We talk about needing work - life balance in our complex lives. I suggest it would also be healthy to have work - life - conflict balance, since our conflicts are just as inevitable as those of the critters.

Good Manners = Good Conflict Management

 

This week I was at a typical stand-with-a-glass-in-hand cocktail reception, standing in a group with a glass in my hand. I noticed two women very near me in the crowded room. One of the two had an interesting looking book in her arm. I tried to see the title. The woman glanced at me, and looked uncomfortable before moving away. 

I quickly apologized: “I’m sorry, I was trying to see your book; it looks really interesting.” 

 

The woman seemed very relieved: “I thought you were angry that we were standing too close.”

 

Had I unconsciously looked angry? Or maybe my curious look comes across as angry to those who don’t know me? I hadn’t meant to be rude nor intended to make the woman and her companion feel uncomfortable, yet their assumption about me was that I had done both.

 

Simple good manners and an early apology let them know my intention had been benign and we wound up having a fascinating conversation about our favorite books. These strangers who had been prepared to believe I was judging them, and were judging me, wound up making the evening far more pleasant by including me in their conversation. 

 

There are many opinions about ‘political correctness’ and ‘thought police’ telling us what is the right thing to say rather than being able to say anything we want. They may have a good point, that we should be able to just live our lives without being judged by others. Sometimes though, just basic good manners can correct the potential for conflicting interactions.

Know your thinking and belief style to be conflict competent

 

This week I participated in a webinar conducted by Insight Fusion. A community of consultants doing work on innovation in organizations followed an online slide show and discussed the ways to engage people whether they believe that knowledge is important or they believe that exploration is important.

 

My interest in participating in this webinar and the conversation about the topic stemmed from my observations about the conflicts in the workplaces where I intervene. I often observe people in conflict over how to achieve their shared tasks and mutual goals. They all agreed on almost everything except how to get where they knew they wanted and needed to go. Some wanted to be bold and innovative. Some had a lower risk tolerance and wanted to take a safer more factually based route. Depending on whether someone believes in fixed knowledge or fluid exploration, he or she will have a different approach to a problem and a very different set of possible solutions that have the potential to create extremely different action plans. This is what I call their conflict mental map: each person in the conflict has a mental map of what s/he thinks is the correct route to the goal and, on this mental map, the other people in the conflict are on the wrong path.

 

Dennis Stauffer of Insight Fusion (insightfusion.com)led the webinar and wrote this about its:

To a great degree we each create the world as we know it. Our assumptions and beliefs form mental models that have a powerful impact on how we see and interpret everything around us. Some of our mental models are based on conscious choices that we may strongly defend. Other mental models are unconscious choices. They are unexamined assumptions that we hold without realizing their implications. Your mental models may make it easier or more difficult for you to learn, adapt, solve problems and respond to challenges in all aspects of your life, personal and professional. This assessment is designed to reflect back to you some of your mental models and the beliefs, values and behaviors you hold as a result. Our mental models are frequently invisible to us. So it can be tremendously helpful to identify and examine them.”      

There is a whole set of conflicts or potential for conflicts that can arise from this difference in belief systems. The conflicts in this analysis would be between those who believe that there is a definite answer if only there are enough collected facts and those who believe that possible answers could be explored or discovered. This difference in approaches to issues and solutions could be a source of considerable conflict when members of a work team need to formulate shared action plans.

 

The way to move forward from this potential deadlock is to get out of the either/or thinking in which this clash of belief systems gets people stuck. Those who believe that there is knowledge that would lead to a set of facts that would point to the right answer have a valuable contribution to make to the team. Those who believe that there are possible new unexplored options to consider also have a valuable contribution to make to the team. In order to do this, people must be realistic about what type of thinker they are, and what their belief system about knowledge is.

 

The path forward is in the conversation between those two ways of believing. Rather than each arguing in favor of his or her preferred belief of how to proceed, they could have a conversation about all the options, exchange interests, share their concerns and projections, and keep open minded about what the others have to say. Chances are that their goals for the team are the same, such as to succeed in the action plan whatever it is. What they disagree on is how to achieve that goal. They may have to trust that there are a few different ways that they might succeed and that their collective wisdom can be trusted.

Are peaceful workplaces possible?

These are tough times in lots of different contexts. It seems like the reactions to tough times also vary, and some reactions are people acting out their fears and anxieties.

Behavior seems to be following the worsening economic indicators, which is viewed by some as a justifiable response to stress. This behavior can be everything from being faster to lose one’s temper to outright violence. Once this starts in the workplace or at home, it damages relationships and creates toxic conditions, unless it is dealt with immediately and well.

Workplaces have “zero tolerance” and other policies that attempt to enforce good behavior. Is there more that can be done to relieve the stress that some say contributes to the acting out? In other words, what will create peaceful environments where people have more internal strategies than just acting out their frustrations and anger at external matters that seem beyond their control?

Ideally, everyone will feel fairly treated and respected. That would be a good foundation for peaceful relationships. Since we all have different definitions of what this might mean or look like or how it might be achieved, we also need skills for dealing with our feelings when we believe we are unfairly treated and disrespected.

A useful skill is checking meaning when someone communicates. It is easy to react to what we thought someone meant in a message, without checking on whether our assumption about his or her intended meaning is correct.

Taking responsibility for our reactions is another good behavior. When something happens, it may not be ‘done to us’ and we need not always react as if it were being personally aimed in our direction.

Uncertainty makes us feel insecure and shaky, which can cause us to behave differently than if we had more information to guide us. Dealing well with uncertainty is a skill that can be developed. Learning to generate options and create ‘what if…’ scenarios so that we feel better prepared for more eventualities will help us create our own sense of security instead of just reacting to what we think others should be giving us.

Fostering a sense of resiliency and belief in our capacity to be okay is another useful skill for feeling peaceful in our relationships. Resilient people take adversity and uncertainty in better humor because they work with the situation as it arises, rather than catastrophizing about what awful things will come out of the situation.

Yes, many situations are very difficult right now. how we deal with those adverse conditions is the measure of who we want to be and how we value the relationships we are able to enjoy.

 

Conflict is a Relationship

Two friends stopped talking to each other after a disagreement. They each thought the relationship was over because they had officially called the friendship off. Yet, when they each individually saw their mutual friends, that fight was all they talked about.

Some think that once people are in a conflict, their relationship has been broken, ruptured, or ruined. In other words, the relationship no longer exists. In fact, being in a conflict ties the people together in one of the most tightly coupled of relationships. A conflict competent strategy - whether it is conversing with, apologizing to, sending a message for the other people - is just about the only method for changing a conflict relationship.  However, not many people are able to experience a conflict and immediately put the whole episode behind them. 

Few emotions are stronger than feelings of anger, betrayal, pain, rage, insult, rejection, hurt feelings, and/or mistrust. Typically, when people have a conflict they replay in their head the circumstances, the conversations, and the potential life changes that have or are likely to occur as a result. Even when those they are in conflict with are not near by, we argue our point of view to them in our heads. 

Things we said that we regret saying and what we did not say but think we should have said all come to mind, sometimes disturbing our sleep in the middle of the night. As we go abut our days, keep our appointments, push a buggy in the grocery store, and visit with loved ones, there is a low-grade interference with our feeling of well being. We go about our business thinking about how justified, righteous, misunderstood, hard done by or aggrieved we are. In other words, there is often little or no escape from our minds’ thinking of the person we feel strongly about, whether that high emotion is love or hate. 

Bottom line is that avoiding, ignoring, or pretending about conflict is rarely successful in relieving us from the harsh effects of conflict. Our thoughts tend to keep us actively engaged with the conflict even as we try to forget about it. Dealing competently with the person or people we are in conflict with is the best solution to putting the conflict behind us.

You don’t need permission to change a conflict

Except in the extreme cases of the strong imposing or controlling others’ behaviors, we each have control only over ourselves. Although we might prefer to change other people so that they get along with us, if a positive relationship with someone is in your interest, you might want to start with what you have control over - yourself.

That might not seem like much, but control over self gives each of us the power and ability to begin to change our conflicts into more positive events. We don’t have to wait for someone to agree or give us permission to make a change. We don’t even have to let them know we’re trying.

If you are in conflict with someone whose behavior, attitude or judgments you wish would change, you likely know by now that your efforts to impose your will on the other person have not been effective. Instead, try starting with your own behavior, attitude or judgments towards that other person.

I’ve been coaching the President of an international company who was having a conflict with others on the senior management team. The current economic conditions were making the conflict much more intense by adding financial concerns to an already difficult relationship.

As he and I were going through the problem from his perspective, the President said, “…  he didn’t act like a normal human being would.” I asked the President how that opinion of abnormality would have sounded to him if he had overheard someone else saying it. The President defended his opinion of the other person’s actions. When I asked in what ways the President’s opinion of the other person was observable by others, he admitted he hadn’t thought of that. He did believe it was possible that his attitude about others on the senior management team could be affecting his own actions and behaviours.

In other words, the President’s judgment of the team was well known, even though the President was adamant he had never expressed that opinion to anyone but me. He didn’t have to say it; he showed disrespect for the members of the team in a lot of ways. Who started the disrespect was not the issue. He had a goal of improving his relationship with the team. He was, therefore, the one who was able to start towards that goal.

The President got it immediately: “you mean, I’m acting towards them the same way I’m complaining they are acting towards me?” I got an email from the President the next day: “I changed my attitude in the meeting today and there were no conflicts or snide remarks. I guess I was part of the problem.”

Try becoming more conflict competent in your interactions with that difficult other person who you have tried unsuccessfully to change, and watch the person adapt to your change. As your behavior becomes more conflict competent, the conflict situation will improve. The person who gave you permission to fix the situation by making changes was you.

Change that which is within your power to change, that is, your own behavior, attitude or judgments. You will notice the difference, even if no one else notices at first.

It Depends: Finding balance in conflict

As much as we might like to believe we are impartial (without bias or prejudice), no one is that objective or free of socialized or cultural influences. We all have biases towards or against certain things. Even though we may be unaware of it, our thoughts, words, body language and behaviors all express those biases. Careful listeners and observers can hear and see our preferences. We telegraph, in our answers to questions and statements of opinion, whether or not we are impartial.

There are a few different consequences of this unconscious bias; I will touch on two of them.

  1. Our biases can prevent our seeing the full complexity of a situation. In complex issues, we fall back on what we already believe to be true. That helps us manage the amount of information we would otherwise need to have in order to understand what is happening. A bias or two here and there means we accept some things as true whether they are or not. Thus, we don’t have to rethink everything we accept as true. Whatever does not fit with what we believe to be true, we can reject as false. While this simplifies our life, it acts as a barrier to getting the full story from all perspectives.
  2.  A bias towards something is just as limiting in our points of view as a bias against something. I love ice cream. It is my bias towards what makes a treat great. I’m happy to reject the knowledge that ice cream is bad for me. That point of view doesn’t fit with my idea of what is good for me. If it’s just ice cream, no harm is done. However, if my point of view is limited because I accept or reject something as true or good without seeing that my bias is the reason, then I may be perpetuating myths about something, someone or some place.

One of the ways around this is to be a relativist, rather than an absolutist, even though that makes some ethicists cringe. By relativist I mean that you couch your answers and opinions in terms that acknowledge the many variables that exist in each unique conflict situation. Instead of relishing the simplicity of having your biases decide your opinions and answers to questions, challenge your own thinking and feelings about whether you believe a statement is a true fact based on your bias.

A practical application of this need for relativism is in complex conflict situations, such as the Middle East. We know what we already believe, and we can then reject the other sides’ facts. If we don’t acknowledge the complexity of the situation, we can stick doggedly with our own point of view. Believing what we already believe to be true and rejecting anything that disagrees with our bias certainly is easier than challenging whether we have a bias towards one of the sides. However, it might be that our underlying assumptions, beliefs, and biases are not true, or at least not as true as we want them to be.

When people, families, societies or states are in conflict, we don’t have to state a preference for one side over the other in order to be advocates for peace. The answer and the opinions of who is wrong and who is right might well warrant the best answer of all: “It depends”.

Transforming Conflict Attitudes

On Sunday, a group of 25 senior citizens gathered to watch a 1934 movie about a family torn apart by conflict between a mother we’ll call M and her daughter-in-law we can call S. Over 15 years of the story, the rift got deeper and uglier, until the 13 year old grandson reached out to his grandmother and brought her together with his mother and father we’ll call Y, at his birthday party. My role at the gathering was to facilitate the post-movie discussion.

We began by asking who in the audience blamed the mother M, who blamed the daughter-in-law S, who blamed the son Y, who blamed S’s mother CD, who blamed S’s father J. Once the votes were in, we began the conflict analysis of reasons underlying the characters’ motivations. 

The defenders of M pointed out that she was a single mother who loved her son Y, and wanted S to be a good wife to him. M gave Y a secure life and S was ungrateful. Defenders of S argued that M was overbearing and would not allow S to be mistress of her own home. Defenders of CD contended that she was just trying to stand up for her daughter S when M was trying to control everyone’s life. Defenders of Y explained he was not weak, but was simply torn between his love for his wife S and his mother M. Defenders of J said he was just goofy but did not mean any harm.

As we discussed the characters’ inner lives and reasons for acting as they did, we saw the parallels to our own lives and how we assume others’ intentions are good or bad according to our own beliefs. When we worked to understand each characters’ intentions, motives, reasoning and emotions, we became less blaming and judgmental, and became more tolerant and compassionate. By the end of the discussion, we agreed there was more than enough blame to go around, but each character was simply trying to do the best he or she could under the circumstances.

After that, the audience had no accusations left for the character they had once voted was the villain of the movie. Now, can we apply this exercise of compassionate listening to our own lives and conflicts? 2009 will be more peaceful if we can.

Conflict Patterns

This week I gave a workshop on the patterns of conflict we get into that we cycle through and can’t seem to break. There were 14 smart, caring, good people in the room, and they shared a common quality: They recognized that they were having the same conflicts over and over. Their little conflicts and their monster conflicts had the same characteristics. They defaulted to the same conflict style and the same response when they felt stressed, attacked, or judged.

After the workshop, they said they had learned very useful strategies to break the cycle, change the pattern, and do conflicts more competently. They set out to practice their new conflict skills on the people who cycled through the conflicts with them.

One of the things they learned is that each of them can change the pattern on their own, whether the other person in the conflict knows, agrees, participates, or collaborates on the change. By taking responsibility for managing his or her own contribution to the conflict pattern, each of them can change the conflict to something more productive. 

Interpretation and Conflict Competence

At a recent mediation, two parties described the events that created their conflict. One (let’s call the first person A) had handed the other (that would be person B) a letter containing information that deserved priority attention. After that, the two versions were very different in intention although they could agree on the basics.

Person A said that Person B treated the letter Person A had delivered to B with disdain even though it was important, threw the letter to the ground, and then, ignoring both Person A and the letter, went back to work as if Person A were an irritant to be dismissed without a word. This rudeness was inexcusable to Person A, who believed that was the moment the conflict took flight. Person A left the office feeling belittled and offended.

Person B’s version was that Person A had stormed into the office without knocking, threw the letter in Person B’s face even though B was at work, then stood there huffing as if Person B should immediately stop all other work. Person B pushed the letter aside to deal with once Person A had gone, and it might have accidently slipped to the floor from the push. Person B believed the conflict erupted when Person A entered the room as a rude interruption, and thus, B felt justified in continuing to work because, to do otherwise, would reinforce Person’s A belief that such behaviour was acceptable when it clearly was not.

So, each agreed on the basic facts. One person entered the office with a letter that must be brought to the other person quickly. The first person had transferred the letter to the second person’s desk. The second person pushed at the letter. The letter had fallen from the desk to the floor. 

After that, everything else was subject to interpretation. Either A had entered B’s office rudely, or not. B had reacted rudely or not. The letter had been pushed with emotional force or not. The letter’s fall to the floor had been accidental or not. There was huffing involved or not. 

Two people, one set of facts, two very different interpretations, depending on whether the addition of a hostile adjective served the purpose of making the other person wrong, or not. Since we are very poor mind readers, we infer the adversarial or friendly intention of other people based on how we feel about them.

If, in our mind, someone is friendly, we see their actions as friendly and their intention as well meaning. However, when we perceive someone as adversarial in relation to ourselves, their actions will be perceived as adversarial whether they meant it that way or not.

When I inquired further into the history of their relationship, they revealed that the letter incident was just one of a series of events between them that was negatively interpreted. In other words, because of their history of animosity, each was prepared to believe that the other had a hostile attitude, and interpreted their actions through those belief systems. Once we were able to explore the reality of the belief, the letter incident took on greatly diminished significance.

Preventing Conflict

 

Work this busy month has revolved around a theme: dedicated, ethical, and well-liked people got into conflicts that could have been prevented or solved early. My clients were in situations that left them feeling unfairly treated, angry, misunderstood, and/or the victim of an injustice. How did it get to be this way for intelligent, good people?

 

It can’t be reduced to a simple answer, but there was a pattern. Once they felt disagreed with, they saw their own perspective, defended their position, and got bogged down in a conflict they could not find a way to end with grace.

 

Here’s a typical example of the situation and how they eventually addressed it.

 

If a boss reprimands an employee and the employee accepts that, there is no dispute. If the reprimand feels unfair, the employee challenges the boss creating a dispute if that is how the boss responds. If they put this incident into a framework of ongoing personality and stylistic differences and make the reprimand about everything the two of them ever had differences about, it is a conflict. 

 

There is no dispute. 

Employee might accept the reprimand because: employee admits wrongdoing; boss is too powerful to contradict; employee feels reprimand is trivial in the bigger picture; boss speaks in a way employee does not take seriously; employee does not respect boss’s opinion, and so on. In each possible option, the employee makes meaning of the boss’s words and decides, consciously or unconsciously, how to react. The dispute is prevented because the employee mentally normalizes the reprimand as less important than, say, doing the job well or getting along.

 

The employee challenges the boss. 

Once employee engages boss, it’s boss’s turn to decide what meaning to put on the interaction. The dispute may emerge or not, depending on the respective meanings they put on each other’s words and attitudes. Decisions about meaning are not made in isolation. They are grounded in history, character assessment, judgment of effort, value to the team, and other factors. The prevention strategy at this level is to ask yourself: What assumptions am I making without verifying their accuracy? How are my feelings about the person affecting how I perceive the person’s words and deeds? What are my words, deeds and attitude contributing to how this interaction is unfolding? If I change or manage how I feel and react, what else would change?

 

They put this incident into a framework of ongoing differences. 

Because boss and employee have a history, a dispute over the reprimand will recall each time the other has been perceived as irritating, overbearing, wrong, or an obstacle to success. Their words are no longer about the reprimand, but call up experiences such as: “you always”, “you never”, “last time this happened”, “you promised”, “when will you ever”, and reconstructions of other times that expectations were disappointed. The reprimand takes on the meaning they make of their entire relationship. The incident that caused the reprimand is replaced with allegations of character flaws, inadequacies in abilities, and judgments about the other one’s lack of ethics and honour. The prevention strategy at this level is to ask yourself: what am I attributing to the person that has nothing to do with this incident? Is how I feel about our relationship affecting my response to the words the person is saying now? If my best friend said exactly the same things what would I assume s/he meant?

 

Every new dispute incident piles up in the context of the ongoing conflict.

Things may seem calm until the next incident, at which time the fuse is shorter, recovery time to equilibrium is longer, hurt feelings are deeper, and mistrust is stronger. The next time boss makes a decision employee takes it personally. The next time employee stumbles boss perceives it as lack of commitment. The prevention strategy at this level is to ask yourself: is my judgment about this situation being affected by left over feelings from the conflict? Do I perceive this as being done to me rather than something that just is? What is my responsibility, if any, for the situation?

 

You can address disputes before they become conflict systems. Talk to yourself honestly about what is really going on and how you are interpreting it to fit your image as the innocent party. Whether it is boss, teammate, partner, or other person, the question is not who is right or wrong - each believes s/he is right and the other is wrong. The better question is what meaning are you, a human with feelings, making of what is going on? Change the meaning you attribute to the situation, and your perception of the qualities you attribute to the other person can also change.

Problem solving for success

 

The best information we get under even normal conditions is imperfect. No one can know everything necessary to figure out what will happen next. We get facts and then trust the facts are accurate and are the ones we need for the problems on our plates. But all facts are subject to interpretation, so we create meaning out of the facts, and make the best decisions we can under the circumstances. Then, we hope for the best.

That uncertainty about the right solution to problems exists under normal conditions. When we feel stressed, under attack, or in conflict, our problem solving abilities tend to become even more constrained. The available information for making good decisions about problems becomes even less complete as communication usually breaks down.

There are, however, tools to improve problem-solving skills. Good problem solving, even under duress, is a learnable skill. Problem solving consists of “the processes used to obtain a best answer to an unknown” (Woods 1997). That’s a ‘best’ answer; not a ‘perfect’ answer. Best is the best outcome anyone can achieve. But, that ‘best achievable outcome’ can be the difference between stopping a potential conflict before it gets going, and getting stuck in a conflict that you can’t see how to solve. Without problem solving skills, we do only what we already know how to do, and solve problems the same way we’ve always solved them. That may not be enough to get us through the tougher problems.

What are those skills? How do you get them?

1. Recognize that problem solving is independent of the problem. The problem itself is about the content, but the solution skills are not. The skills for solving problems are process skills that can be applied to any problem, no matter what the content or topic of the problem is. The processes to solve most all problems resemble each other, even though the problems are very different.

2. In periods of calm, identify what kind of problem solving behaviour you want. Have a target in mind. Do it while you are not facing extraordinary problems because you want a stress free environment. That way you are not adding stress by trying something that takes you out of your comfort zone while you are already stressed or in conflict.

3. Find ordinary situations you regularly face, and think about different ways of doing them. You are seeking to expand beyond the way you commonly do things that aren’t working well.

4. Once you have tried this with simple problems, reflect on what you did, how it changed things, what worked or needs adjustment, and how it affected you. As part of your reflection, seek feedback from others. Ask how your problem solving skills affect others.

5. Be aware of what you are learning about how you normally react, as you learn how to learn to do things differently. That’s called double loop learning. Start simple and take on more complex problems as you learn from trying.

6. Honour what you already know, but remember it also is imperfect knowledge. Expand it with more options.

A supportive non-judgmental opinion about how you are making the transference to more competent problem solving strategies would be a big help. If that isn’t available, then you must be even more reflective, honest with yourself, and mindful of how you are progressing. Once you expand your skills in the problem solving process, the content of the problem is more manageable.

 

Woods, D. R. et. al. (1997). “Developing Problem Solving Skills: the McMaster Problem Solving Program.” Journal of Engineering Education April: 75-90.

Managing Conflict Reduces Stress

It’s become a mantra that stress ages; stress kills; stress reduces quality of life. Stress is a major problem of the modern developed world. There are a lot of strategies for reducing and managing stress. Notoriously missing from the list of ways you can control your stress level is perhaps the most obvious one: learn to manage conflict.

On the usual list of strategies are some very good suggestions: eat well, rest, be physically active, smile at people, get a massage, love a lot of people, volunteer, and so on. Excellent ideas all. How about the big idea of transforming your conflicts into collaborative conversations? It’s hard to imagine something that would reduce your stress level more than not having that fight with your family, colleagues, friends, the parking lot attendant, and the person in customer service who keeps you holding on the phone for 20 minutes only to tell you that you need to call someone else. 

Here’s my best suggestion for reducing stress. Learn to do conflicts better. When you feel attacked, decide not to become defensive. When someone says something that strikes you as out of place, decide not to assume the speaker meant the worst intention. When you feel someone is trying to control you, find a different reaction than blowing up or automatically resenting and resisting. 

Change your reaction and you can change the interaction. Change one thing and you change everything. The only thing you can change is yourself. The only thing you can control is your reaction and assumption. Start there. Instead of becoming defensive, resentful, argumentative, or demanding, try asking a question to determine what the person meant to say. Rephrase what you heard to ensure you understand their intention as well as what you assume they intended.

I love the cartoons that have two parts: what was said and what was heard. One cartoon has the wife saying, “If you’re getting yourself some water, I’d love some too.” What the husband, depicted in the second panel, heard was: “You’re such a lazy slob you never do anything for me.”

Are you caught in this pattern of reacting to what you hear instead of what the person said? You won’t know if you just assume instead of asking and engaging in a constructive conversation. Do your stress level a favour and develop a better way of doing conflict. 

Conflict Mental Maps 1

A conflict analysis is based on and in turn informs the conflict mental map everyone creates as the situation unfolds. The conflict mental map keeps the action integrated and organized in people’s heads, for making decisions while under the stresses of conflict.

Conflict mental maps help me explain what I am observing, how to interpret it, the meaning to make of it, what process design might be most beneficial, when an intervention might be appropriate, who the parties and allies are, where the power/resources can be found, the boundaries around the conflict landscape, and everything else that impacts the conflict system.

In an intervention, whatever I say/do is going to have the parties’ attention. I want it to count for something, and can choose any one of a number of directions. I see the map of the conflict terrain in my head with multiple paths to walk at possible bifurcation points, depending on where I steer the parties next. Some paths are dead ends, some might rile things up, and one or two are potentially helpful. I get about a nanosecond to decide on a direction and speak, so I make decisions based on continual instantaneous conflict analyses, rapidly generating options mentally, checking them against the conflict mental map, weighing the options against what I know, rejecting some words, assessing how particular personalities might interpret it, and picking words least likely to be misunderstood and most likely to accomplish something positive.

 Everyone makes a mental model of how their conflict happened, where the conflict currently stands, and what they wish would occur. People take actions to achieve whatever conflict goals seem possible and optimal, based on that subjective analysis of conflict history, present, and future. Sometimes their analysis is global, altruistic, and/or correct, sometimes it is local, self-centered, and/or irrational, and always it is constrained by imperfect and incomplete data. We do our best within the boundaries of unique personal, factual, and skills limitations. However, conflict analysis is where everyone starts whether intentionally or intuitively, artfully or ineptly. That mental map of the conflict contains a landscape that can be tamed. 

 

Conflict life cycles

 

 

Being a mediator means being ready for pretty much anything. Normally, as soon as I’m retained, I try to make things happen quickly. Conflicts have a cycle, whether decades or nanoseconds. There may or may not be warning signs. Once people take on the additional identity of party in a conflict, that identity begins to define all the other identities that exist in the relationship. But they are still in a relationship.

 

People think that once they shift from being just people in a relationship to parties in a conflict that the relationship is over. The conflict actually keeps them tightly bound together although they think of themselves as broken apart. Whether it transformed from a loving relationship into a destructive one, or started as destructive, whether it slowly gestated or quickly exploded, conflict is a relationship. We learn from conflict, grow with it, and change because of it.

 

For as long as the conflict exists, we expend energy feeling about it, absorb cranial space with wishes about and for those we think have harmed us, and behave in ways that make sense within the boundaries of a conflict relationship. After the conflict ceases we still may not let our conflicts go. It can change our behaviour for the future. The feelings associated with that relationship can come flooding back years later, carried on the smells of a memory, the anecdotes of a friend that remind us of something, a stranger walking by who seems familiar, or an unexpected encounter with someone who knew you back then. Conflicts have a cycle that ends, but their half-lives can resemble radioactive uranium. 

 

When to intervene in a conflict is, in theory, a question of appropriate timing and is, in practice, part risk and part luck. Being too early or too late makes intervention more difficult. As a consultant there is usually only one time that I can intervene, and that’s when I get hired to walk into someone else’s context.

 

There is little room for pessimism in a mediator’s mind. A group of mediators is truly a gathering of positive paranoids; mediators can convince themselves that everyone is out to get them to do the right thing. I assume that when the time is ripe, the cycle will be ready to move to a different pattern. My job includes helping the parties reach that ripeness.

Conflict is Data

A client experiencing a sudden conflict among a work team called an emergency meeting. She identified one person as a source of the problem. She asked me if the “problem person” should be invited to the emergency meeting. It was a fair and good question.

My response was: “Yes, please do invite him to the meeting, and let him know that everything is up for discussion, so he can have his say, and ask his questions, and vent if he wants to.” Naturally, the client was concerned that blaming and accusations would derail the meeting. Indeed, blaming and accusations might have happened. But, that would not necessarily derail the meeting. Instead, the client could listen to this “problem person” in a new way. I urged the client to stop thinking of him as the problem and listen for the content.

I coached the client to hear within his words all his emotion and passion in order to understand his position, his expectations, his interests, and his disappointments. During the meeting, we came to understand what was creating the situation. As that happened, the situation was less frightening, threatening, and intimidating, and he was able to decrease his contribution to fueling the conflict.

People tend to be uncomfortable in and around conflict, because of how we perceive conflict. Conflict, however, is data. Seeing the conflict as information about how people are interpreting a situation makes a conflict more understandable. Conflict, then, is evidence that people care enough to engage with each other about a topic they have in common. 

I’m referring to a specific type of data, because some uses of data can make a conflict intensify and last longer. The three recurring ways that data are used in conflicts are:

1. Data offered as objective probative facts that ought to ‘win’ the conflict.

There is a theory that facts are objective. If this were true, people would not disagree about what facts mean. However, facts have an element of subjectivity. Facts do not speak for themselves. People interpret facts through their personal fears about potential harm, risk assessments, and belief systems. Usually, even scientifically robust information is interpretable through the different values and worldviews of each side. This type of data can be seen as information about values and worldviews.  

 

2. Data that entrenches people in their conflict

Conflict resolution is only partly about sorting through whose version of the facts is correct. Determining ‘who said what’ is generally not the path to a solution in conflict resolution. Each side will be able to find facts to support a position that they already believe to be true. Then, they will reject the facts that the other side believes to be true. The conflict becomes focused on which of the competing and inconsistent facts ought to be accepted as accurate, and whose facts ought to be rejected. When everyone deeply believes s/he is correct, and the others are incorrect, adding more facts adds information to disagree about. This type of information can be seen as data about temperaments.       

3. Data that can help move people to a solution

The fact that ’someone said something’ is often a useful bit of data in conflict analysis. The data was not what was said, but - more importantly - how people interpreted it, how they felt about it, what emotion it brought up for them, and how it motivated them to take their next steps. Rather than fighting over whose facts are correct, we discuss the interpretation of the facts, how the people interpreting the facts assess the risks associated with the facts, what beliefs underlie the facts, how the assumptions that support the facts might be variables, where fears apply to the facts, gaps in information about the facts, and so on.             

Conflict analysis and resolution is about how people interpreted and felt about those facts. So, every one who had data was welcome at the meeting. In fact, we needed their data to formulate the messages, plans, strategies, agendas, and solutions to go forward as a happy, productive team in a healthy workplace. The “problem person” contributed his facts and that data was included in the meeting outcomes. That was how we came up with a plan to address the client’s emergency situation. The “problem person” was transformed into a part of the solution.

Conflict when Goals are the Same

© L. Deborah Sword

Conflict is often defined as disagreements over goals, or opposing interests among people, or struggles over resources. However, conflict can arise even when people have the same goals, have similar interests, and have access to equal resources.

This is a true story of four groups of people working on a conflict-laden problem in their community. It was a matter of record that all of the groups wished to accomplish the same goals, yet they were unable to work together. They had an honest disagreement over the solutions to their shared problems. 

They believed the conflict statement was: which of the proposed solutions is the right solution. In other words, they agreed on the narrow issue, they agreed on the need for community wide solutions, they agreed on the desired outcome, and they adamantly disagreed over what solutions would get them from the current problems to the wished for end state.

Depending on the perceptions of the root cause, different solutions presented. One group argued that the problem was caused by structural inequities (government), while another blamed individual behavior (people), a third pointed to discrimination (class/race/poverty), and the fourth held social isolation (place) responsible. Many experts offered contradictory evidence with no way to decide among it. The four solutions were philosophically inconsistent with each other. The choice was framed as irreconcilable - either ‘their way’ or ‘our way’. All four groups believed that the others’ wrong solution was a waste of resources that would perpetuate the problem, and that the preferred solution (i.e. theirs) was correct and more compassionate.

All the solutions required large resource investments, without the chance to return to the original state if the chosen solution later turned out to be the wrong choice. There was little communication or interaction among the groups while they worked hard at cross-purposes. No time or resources were spent reconciling the rifts.

All the groups perceived a need for cooperation, however, they believed that cooperation would happen only when those who disagreed with them changed. None of them considered the possibility of themselves changing to see things the way of another.

What they had in common outweighed their differences, and still they had entrenched conflict. All of the groups were missing the opportunity for inclusive, public conflict processes. They used competitive discourses to oppose each other and vie for influence, believing there was one solution to one problem. We shifted the problem statement from ‘which of the proposed solutions is the right solution’ to ask instead how to ‘inspire and engage the community, invigorate local governance, and enhance problem-solving capacity’, which changed the discourse from competition to collaboration. From there, they worked to nurture the attributes of community builders, and found affiliation through community life that each group was seeking.

Conflict Competence: Neanderthal to Now

 

If you have ever been disappointed in, embarassed by, or amazed at how out of character you behaved in a conflict, take heart. Humans generally are hard-wired for sub-optimal conflict incompetence. By understanding this, you can become conflict competent.

 Our brains and bodies instinctively view conflict as a threat, like invading armies at the borders and germs on our hands are threats. Under threat, we revert to the most fundamental of drives – to survive. Our bodies get us physically ready by optimizing what we need to protect the vital functions of strength, speed, and agility. Our minds get us mentally ready by focusing narrowly on the crisis and rejecting extra information. However, this sacrifices higher level brain functions that are less vital to the immediate success of survival, such as memory, sense of time, and cognition.

How we adapted to the threats of conflict began millennia ago. Adaptation is an evolutionary strategy for continuing to thrive on a fitness landscape. Those who do not adapt can perish. We adapted to shut down anything that diverts blood, oxygen, hormones, chemicals, and energy from their essential functions of saving us. And it is all done automatically by the amygdala, the original limbic brain that operates basic feelings. The adaptation to extreme emotions and data overloads is to shut down feelings such as empathy and collaboration.

The design worked incredibly well during the time period in which it was bred into our species, say, about the late Pliocene period, when the humanoid population was walking – more or less upright - around the Afar Depression of present Ethiopia. The design was not given a test run in crowded urban communities, which is either perverse entertainment at human expense, or insufficient prescient to anticipate globalization.

The Australopithecus afarensis, nicknamed Lucy, who may or may not be our indirect ancestor, had very different threats to deal with than we do now. When a predator was bearing down on Lucy, if she lacked these automatic responses to threat, and was contentedly enjoying the day, was slow to run, was easily distracted, or did not fight, she would not have survived to contribute to the gene pool. When a saber–toothed tiger was charging was no time to be thinking what to have for dinner or she would be dinner. We inherited the genes of the fleet-footed, the narrowly focused, and the fierce. Feeling compassion for their adversary rarely led to good outcomes for Lucy or her related tribes.

It is a side effect of human biology that clear strategic thinking, when most needed, can be an early casualty of conflict. We still have, despite our sophistication, the same limbic responses to basic threats to hunger, thirst, procreation, and comfort that kept Lucy and her kin alive into their old age. Although feeling threatened or attacked affects our  higher brain functions, we make decisions in conflicts without questioning whether our operating systems have full capacity. We narrowly focus on threats we fear, when conflict competence would entail thinking clearly about strategies for making the most of conflict-laden problems. 

From Neanderthal to now, we read into threatening situations what we need to see in order to explain our emotions. If we feel fear, we will perceive a threat in the other person’s behaviour to explain the source of our emotion. We attribute to others what helps us make sense of our feelings, thoughts, and bodily sensations. That person’s words and actions become the way that we seek to understand our emotions. The cycle made sense in Lucy’s time.  Now, we do a cycle of attributionsassumptions, and belief systemsBy the time we think of alternatives to the conflict, often a conflict cascade has already escalated. Has a limbic response that was originally a fail-safe mechanism, become a design flaw? Not really. Threats still exist and the immediate automatic response to danger still keeps us safe. However, not all conflicts need to be reacted to as threats. Sometimes, becoming instinctively defensive and aggressive can be counter-productive. Then, it can require different conflict analyses and resolution strategies to work with the decisions that want to flow from natural limbic thought processes. The irony of teaching conflict competence is that if higher brain functions were not affected in conflict situations, people likely would not need assistance with their conflict-laden problems.  To be successful in imparting conflict competence would work me out of a job. I am okay with that. 

A Tale Of Cross-Cultural Relationships

 

© L. Deborah Sword, first written July 2005, as a sci-fi metaphor for the challenges, rewards, and insights of being in relationship.

Chapter one, Looking

 There was once a lovely planet with a magenta sky and cinnamon flavored water. Although the planet was small, it was possible to see it in the universe if you were in the right place at the right time and knew where to look.

The people on the planet belonged to many different social groups that lived together in communities, getting along with the others as best they could. It happened, on occasion, that someone from one group would develop feelings for someone from another group. That was seen as harmless by all the groups, but was not encouraged.

Such was the situation for two individuals that you might have noticed if you were looking in the right place at the right time. You could have seen BeeLa, a happy female of the Sparkle group, accidentally meeting Nonie, a quiet male of the Tinkle group, through no fault of either of them. Both had long lived contentedly alone, and neither had been actively seeking the complications of a relationship - and most particularly not a permanent relationship outside their own social group.

The first insight they gained was that feelings could guide someone where good sense would counsel one not to go. How we feel directs how we think and act, not the other way around.

So it happened. Nonie made an offer to BeeLa that, at first, she found easy to refuse. She was happy with her solitude as a single Sparkle and, even had she not been, she was not looking to change her life with a Tinkle, charming or otherwise. But charming he indeed was, and the offer he made was intriguing. He offered her only himself and her independence at the same time. Against everyone’s better judgment she accepted the offer just as it was, without any negotiating.

Chapter two, Cross-Cultural Couplings

 You might well ask if there was a reason that Sparkles and Tinkles, or any of the other social groups on the planet for that matter, did not couple with each other. In fact, there was a reason. It was easier to couple with someone of the same social group. This is their second insight: feelings can often take the hardest path possible. The hard path might not lead to happiness, but it certainly has the potential to lead to learning.

Sparkles and Tinkles, like all social groups, have their own cultures, rules and norms of acceptable behavior. No rule or norm was universally true for every culture, for all the time, or for every situation. Cultures, rules and norms are excellent things to have; they make it possible for social groups to function because everyone knows what is acceptable and how to behave. Cultures, rules and norms do everything from establishing the colour that means ‘go’ to determining what is beautiful, what is rude, and what is good to eat. Every part of life is described by culture, a rule, or a norm, whether we know it or not.

Coupling with someone from another social group could get confusing about how things actually worked. The Sparkle culture described certain things as good behavior and correct thinking, and the Tinkle culture described certain things as good behavior and correct thinking. But they were not necessarily the same things. This could be a challenge in couplings between individuals from the different social groups. Figuring out another’s culture, norms and rules required flexibility, perseverance, and a nimble mind.

Chapter three, Specifics of Sparkles and Tinkles 

Specifically, Sparkle culture evolved around personal privacy, and setting boundaries around what was your business and what was my business. No matter how close we might be in kin or friendship, you minded your own business and I minded mine. That was considered the only polite way to be in a relationship among Sparkles. Curiosity required poking into other people’s business. Thus questions, as a general social rule, were considered inappropriate. Loving a Sparkle meant respecting those boundaries of personal space.

Tinkles, in contrast, were curious by nature and got rewarded for asking questions early and often. No question was considered too stupid or intrusive to ask, even of strangers. Tinkles’ boundaries existed, but left plenty of room for inquiry. Also, Tinkles did not have the same number of rules of behavior that Sparkles had; a trait that might make Sparkles view Tinkles’ culture as messy, whereas Tinkles might view Sparkles’ culture as rigid.

Another difference in the two cultures was their verbalization of feelings. Tinkles said what they felt as they were feeling it, such as telling a loved one about that love just because it felt good to a Tinkle to say it. In Tinkle culture, if a male did not tell a female he loved her, it was because he didn’t. Sparkles also had strong emotions, but their norms were more constraining in speaking about their feelings. If a Sparkle male loved a female, he expected her to continue to know it until he told her otherwise. Tinkles should not expect emotionally revealing discussions with beloved Sparkles.

Tinkles were adventurers and Sparkles were homebodies. And so on. Perhaps you can see where this would lead for BeeLa and Nonie?

Chapter four, BeeLa and Nonie together

 BeeLa, as a typical Sparkle, needed a lot of privacy and boundaries set quite far away from her. Nonie proclaimed that he was the perfect male for her. He was much quieter than the usual Tinkle, which suited her need for alone time. Nonie did not seem inclined to profess love as soon as and whenever the thought popped into his heart. If he had, it would have made BeeLa uncomfortable, thinking that he was needy and clinging, two characteristics the reserved Sparkles found very off-putting.

Therefore, BeeLa was prepared to give Nonie a chance to be part of her coupling, which was how these things happened on the lovely small planet with a magenta sky and cinnamon flavored water. Those with whom BeeLa and Nonie associated were concerned, but offered unconditional support if it made the new couple happy to be together. Without that support, they would have felt isolated. That was their third insight; individuals, even in couples, do not function in isolation from their community. No matter how much personal space they require, they also need to belong to a social group.

The coupling went very well at first. Everything that one did was a delight for the other one. Nonie was thrilled to learn that BeeLa liked the same cream, hung her decorations in the same way, and enjoyed the same music as him. BeeLa enjoyed that Nonie did the same sports, knew the same stories, and had the same values as she did.

Then Nonie started behaving like a Tinkle, telling BeeLa he loved her whenever his heart felt it. At first, BeeLa thought that was sweet and replied, “same here.” After a while, it began to feel smothering, as if Nonie were colonizing her. When Nonie said he loved her, her reaction became, “whatever.” Nonie felt rejected, which made him insecure in the relationship, so he did what any Tinkle would do - he tried harder to be more loving so that BeeLa would respond lovingly, which made her withdraw because, to her Sparkle sensibilities, that was cloying.

To counter his fear that he was losing BeeLa’s attention, Nonie asked BeeLa questions to show his interest. At first, BeeLa thought it was sweet and shared her stories. Over time, she felt verbally invaded. The more she retreated, the more he tried to show interest in her.

Chapter five, Self-Defeating Acts 

From being delighted in the things they shared in common, they became strained over the differences in cultures, rules and norms. It looked to be leading to the end of the coupling. Nonie figured BeeLa had the most needs: for space, for rules and for things done her way. All he needed was affection and to occasionally share fun activities.

BeeLa, on the other hand, was pretty happy with the way things were. When Nonie was too intimate, she got irritated until he backed away into his personal feelings of rejection, which fit her expectations of a couple just fine. It was, she reasoned, his problem to deal with any feelings of rejection or neglect that he chose to entertain. The cycle became: Nonie showed his interest, BeeLa reacted with her withdrawal, that led to his feelings of rejection, which renewed her satisfaction that he was now leaving her alone, so she became sweet, and Nonie showed his interest again, thus sparking a repeat of the pattern. 

One day, Nonie sat glumly thinking about it, and concluded that, if one of them were to change things, it would have to be him. BeeLa was most content being coupled with him when he felt rejected enough to leave her alone. She inadvertently met her needs by not meeting his. So, asking her to not reject him was unlikely to succeed, since that change would work against her being satisfied. 

He could not set about changing his way of being in the coupling without help in understanding Sparkles. It was not enough to understand BeeLa because much of her needs and expectations were culturally based. He sought an expert in Sparkle culture who was not a Sparkle, since a Sparkle would just think BeeLa was correct, and judge Nonie as being wrong. That was his fourth insight: being in the culture does not necessarily allow you to see it objectively. The judgment of a different culture is made through the lens of your own culture, and your own culture will feel right to you.

Gadgets were a social group that, like all social groups, had its own culture, rules, and norms of acceptable behavior. Gadgets had a well-developed sense of humor and laughed at almost everything. As a result, they had almost no tragedy in their lives because they did not view life’s setbacks as misfortune. Death, for example, was one of their funniest rites of passage. Thus, they were gifted in their understanding of the foibles of life, romance, and dramas the social groups conjured for themselves. Most comedians on the planet were Gadgets. If you had a problem, a Gadget would put into perspective.

Nonie called a close Gadget friend. Terbah laughed, of course, at Nonie’s seriousness, and said they could meet that afternoon. That was a fifth insight: it helps to have someone who is willing and available to laugh and talk.

Chapter six; Laugh to Insight 

Terbah was brutally, humorously honest as they sat in a garden with containers full of cinnamon and dried plant flavored liquid, enjoying the outdoors.

“Whatever makes you think that the social groups were supposed to understand each other? Gadgets’ best material comes from the innate inability of the groups to figure each other out. If I give you ‘the secret’ to understanding Sparkles or them ‘the secret’ to understanding Tinkles, I lose much of what’s funny in my shtick.”

Nonie did not find this helpful or comforting. “Surely there has to be something that will bridge the communication gap. Isn’t there a compromise possible?” It was a statement more than a question.

“You’re seeing a communication gap, where BeeLa’s seeing too much communication. I encourage you to find an engineer who can build a one-lane bridge that is big enough for vehicles to enter at one end and too small for them to exit at the other end. The big vehicles enter at the big end, while the small vehicles enter at the small end. When they meet in the middle they have to stop. That’s a compromise, and all you’ve got is gridlock in the middle of an impassable bridge.”

“So, am I right in having too many words and emotion going onto the bridge at the big end, or is she right having few words and emotion going onto the bridge at the small end?” Nonie was genuinely confused about who was to blame for the metaphorical gridlock in the non-existent middle of the imaginary ill-designed bridge.

“Trust a Tinkle to simplify this complex issue to an dichotomous choice of right or wrong. You are both right and neither one is wrong. You can’t make her wrong for not being expressive or interested enough, and she can’t make you wrong for being too curious or expressive. You can both try, but you might as well make the sky wrong for being magenta, or the water wrong for tasting like cinnamon.”

Chapter seven; Compromise, Resolution, Transformation

“Okay, if compromise isn’t the way across the bridge, what are the other choices; to continue as things are or break up?” Nonie was losing sight of the Tinkle cultural trait of optimism.

“You’re again simplifying the complex; this time to create a false binary. If you identify only the extremes, then you get a choice of only two, of which one has be made good, and one has be made bad. It’s like saying that only small vehicles can use the bridge, or everyone has to stay off it, or at the middle all those who drove the big cars on will exchange with all those who drove the small cars on to continue the journey. It’s a forced, false choice. There’s also an underside to a bridge and magenta-space over it. Last I checked Tinkles didn’t have wings, but your social group evolves quickly, so don’t give up hope. But keep your driver’s license current just in case.”

Nonie suspected Terbah was mocking him but ignored that. “As it is now, my end of the bridge is wide enough for all my verbiage and exuberance, while BeeLa feels comfortable at the small end for her smaller verbiage and lesser curiosity. Both entrances to the bridge fit our individual needs until we get to the point in the bridge where we met. Then it is neither big enough for me to proceed, nor comfortable enough for BeeLa to proceed. And neither of us could turn on the narrow bridge to return the way we each entered. In other words, neither of us can win if we do it only my way or only her way. So, compromise is a partial win that leaves no one completely satisfied. I give up, Terbah, what’s left to try to resolve our problem?”

“Resolution only ends the current problem that’s been identified. Like, you both agree to buy one vehicle that will fit both ends of the bridge. Then, tomorrow the problem needing resolving is what to do with the old too big and too small vehicles. A compromise resolution is she agrees to talk more and you agree to talk less. Who’s happy with that? No, my friend, what you want is transformation of how the two of you interact when the problems arise, as problems always do. Change the interaction, or the way you look at the interaction, or the resources you have for addressing the interaction. Change something about how you interact around your problems. What makes a joke funny? Surprise. Irony. Novelty. Satire. The unexpected. Try something you haven’t tried before.”

Chapter eight, Getting Off the Bridge

 Nonie thought he was starting to understand. “If I was coupled with a Gadget instead of a Sparkle then, if I understand you, I would initially be delighted at your humor but I would become put off by the fact that you found my serious expressions of love and interest funny.”

“Just as I would go from finding your seriousness charming to finding you dull for being so serious. Gadgets rarely couple with other social groups; you’re a great audience for us but not sustainable in the couple gene pool.”

“But it isn’t your fault you find everything funny and everyone a potential audience. That’s part of Gadget culture and rules and social norms.”

“Yup, my point exactly. Expecting me not to find the humor in every situation is not much different than asking you to say something in less than a paragraph, with a back-story and more detail than BeeLa can possibly absorb. Or than asking BeeLa to give you a rich and full description of what she saw during her day. She isn’t interested because she isn’t interested. It doesn’t fit her rules of coupling.”

“So, I was becoming irritated with BeeLa for ignoring me, and expecting one of us to change our nature to suit the other. You are suggesting that we change how we interact with each other instead. So she could continue to be solitary when she needed to be, and I could continue to be gregarious when I needed to be. But we would not find that a problem because our new attitude towards the interaction was more understanding, more compassionate.”

“You got it Nonie, and I would contribute to that, even more trusting that the positive interaction in the moment would carry you through the present and next temporary irritations.”

Chapter nine, If it doesn’t change you or me, what does it change?

 Nonie mulled over the insight and listened with part of his brain as Terbah proceeded to make fun of his situation and tell old jokes about couplings, which on other days would have had him laughing until he gasped to breathe. Terbah, seeing that Nonie was neither laughing nor paying attention, rose to leave. Realizing how rude it was to not be the audience that Gadget culture, rules and norms thought he ought to be, Nonie started to promise his full audienceship if Terbah would stay.

“Call me when enough time has passed that your current calamity has become a comedy.” And, the sixth insight was that humor would go a long way to changing calamity into comedy.

Nonie wished Terbah farewell and sort of watched as his friend moved away. Gadgets did not exactly walk so the movement was worth watching, even for a Tinkle whose normally bottomless brain was now feeling full. Long after Terbah was gone from the garden, Nonie was still looking in that direction, unblinking, with his thoughts a bucket of colors, fragments, and pending breaches in his barrier to knowledge.

Eventually, he believed he had made sense of it. He struggled to frame another insight: a compromise was good enough for the time being but might not resolve the bigger issue; for example, agreeing on how much they talked. A resolution might solve a bigger issue; such as they might agree to some overall balance in talking, shared activities and alone time. A transformation, on the other hand, could change the nature of their interaction over how they addressed all their issues in the short and long term that left each of them meeting their own needs, and also being aware of and meeting the other one’s needs.

Compromise wasn’t enough. Only a transformation of the nature of the relationship could allow them to be themselves, and also with each other. Assuming he had that right, he still was not entirely sure where to go from there. However, he believed he and BeeLa could figure it out. 

Chapter ten, If a Bridge is Non-Functional, Change Something

 Nonie still sat alone in the garden considering the insights as the magenta sky glowed darkly. He thought he was coming to understand the insights.

When it was time to make choices, it would be easy to grab at the first solution that came to mind. If his was the big, unusable vehicle, for example, whereas a small vehicle might fit both ends of the bridge, using only the small vehicle made sense. However, he thought he could also envision a lot of other possible solutions.

The bridge was the bridge and if it was already built, he could go around it, re-engineer it to fit both size vehicles, change the nature of all vehicles to fit at both ends, get out of the vehicle to walk the bridge leaving a vehicle at both ends, or build another bridge that fit.

“BeeLa wasn’t necessarily wrong in the coupling,” he said aloud to the now dark magenta sky, “unless she was made to be wrong so that I could be right. If she manages her feelings of irritation and silence, and I mange my reactions of rejection and enthusiasm, we haven’t changed us, but we have changed how we interact together.”

He figured he did not need to tell BeeLa this in order to fix things. BeeLa was right and he was right. Therefore, it was how they each managed their interpretation of the interaction between the two of them that could be transformed. Without consulting her, he could begin to not feel rejected and neglected when she needed to be left alone. The only thing that would change would be his interpretation of her attitude, acts, words, and intentions. It wouldn’t take long before she would be ready for the discussion about giving him the same benefit of the doubt when he expressed his jubilation and passion. 

He snapped a mental picture of what that change would look like: the attitudes of compassion, patience, warmth, and kindness, replacing the attitudes of irritability, impatience, rejection, and unkindness. If they made the effort, it would meet BeeLa’s needs and his needs, and it would become a habit. It was a habit worth forming, not just for this relationship, but also for how to live in the lovely planet with a magenta sky and cinnamon flavored water that contained many social groups, and all sorts of conflicts. 

The End